Copied from HotLikeaToaster's note:
But I think we're straying from the original point. There's no need to argue over minutiae like the mythology of Santa. A true believer would definitely come up with indestructible counterarguments to all attempts to disprove it. All you have to say is "metaphorical" and "interdimensional." If u wanna know what I'm talking about, Christians, just tell me, "where" is Heaven, and "where" is Hell? Can we ever send astronauts to Heaven? Can we ever dig deep enough to reach Hell?
I understand Joey's comment to imply that something probably caused or created the universe and the formation of galaxies and life. But to then attribute human-like qualities to this mysterious something, such as emotions (anger, love, vengeance, forgiveness), and to claim that it listens to our "thoughts" and "prayers" and makes a decision to either grant or reject our wishes, is a great stretch. It's totally possible that a non-thinking, emotionless force caused the creation of what we see today.
So it seems to me there is a double standard. When a person "sees and hears" ghosts talking to them about why they are haunting a mansion, society labels that individual as "insane" or "seriously needs help." But when a person "is in a dialogue with" the Christian God of the Bible, and He tells them which lottery ticket to buy or reminds them about their spouse's anniversary, no one thinks it's strange or unusual. That person is considered perfectly normal. Why is that? (and please don't say "Obviously, because the Christian God of the Bible exists and ghosts do not exist") Both of these people believe in supernatural hocus-pocus, but one of them is labeled insane and the other is labeled as normal.
-HotlikeaToaster
Dear HotlikeaToaster,
I understand your concern about my being in this world. I am glad that you are searching for me. However, please understand that I wish most for the promotion of love and goodness. Essential to love is human freewill; as the Creator of the world, I could easily send an unexplainable booming voice across the world every so often so that everybody would know of my existence and power. Yet, people would come to me with the sense that they had no choice. It is love that is forced, and therefore not love at all. Similarly, if you found the Holy Gates of Heaven on the planet which man calls Mars, you would have no choice but to believe in me. Therefore, no, you may not send astronauts to heaven and dig to Hell. Now, about the fact that I have human emotions. Don't you think it's odd for you to have something that the thing that created you doesn't have? Are you, Kevin Tao, claiming that something can come from nothing?
Now, about what you call the double standard. There are people around the world that believe in ghosts and spirits, and their ability to do wicked things. Have you seen the Disney motion picture Mulan? Yup, Buddhists believe in ghosts and spirits of their ancestors. In fact, according to the calendar, this is the month where the gate to their world is most wide open. Yet, these people are not believed to be crazy. Where is the difference between the Buddhists and the insane? The difference does not lie in the numbers, a few insane vs. millions of Buddhists, so it's not a game of popularity. Rather, it is because the Buddhists function regularly apart from their belief in ghosts. If a person believed in the same system of spirits and ghosts but could not process the stimuli (ie: sounds, sights and basic logic) then he/she would be classified as crazy. It is this inability to function regularly apart from one's beliefs that classifies a person as crazy. Otherwise it is just a belief, even if it is far-fetched and erroneous.
I hope that this has been an insightful blog post (It's my first one, but being all-powerful and knowledgable, it really isn't that hard).
Sincerely,
The Word of God (using lovejkoff as a typist)
Posts
5 comments:
Joey,
I'm think your argument against the existence of a double standard is a bit circular. You say that:
Buddhists function regularly apart from their belief in ghosts,
and
The mystic/superstitious ghost-believers are labeled crazy because they are unable to function regularly.
But who defines "regular"? Isn't "regularity" just a synonym for "sanity"? If the mystic/superstitious ghost-believers were correct in their worldview, then all the rest of us are functioning irregularly. Because they would say that we have to be scared and worried about the ghosts! And we cannot afford to be complacent! We're turning a blind eye to the ghosts! Ahhh! Ahh!
And even if we can separate "regularity" from "sanity," I'm sticking to my guns. Clearly, a belief in the supernatural will alter the way you act. There's no way it wouldn't.
If you believe in ghosts, then you will hold seances or play Ouiji boards to try to figure out what the ghosts are saying.
If you believe in gods, then you will often start wars to fight people who believe in other gods. Or you will publicly execute heretics who interpret things slightly differently. Or you will become a missionary, and go to foreign countries and tell the locals they're worshiping false idols and that they're going to hell for their evil sins. Then the locals will get pissed off, and attack you. Then you'll get your home country to "pacify" the natives, and in the meanwhile enslave them (Africa/India) or sell them opium (China) or make them work in silver mines until they die (Latin America) or just kill every last one of them just for fun (Tasmania).
All those things I just mentioned are considered "irregular" by today's standards, but it sure as hell was "normal" back in the day. None of their contemporaries saw it as "unusual" or "strange" behavior. Why is that?
Yo Ktao,
I guess I didn't make myself clear...even with the Word of God hehehe...
Premise: Buddhists believe in ghosts, yet the world thinks (correctly) that they are sane.
Definition: Sane is the proper processing of given information. One cannot judge it based upon end result alone, nor is it based upon the quality of the original information.
So, crazy/insane people are reaching conclusions using erroneous processes. Let's say a person is given a speeding ticket (talking to yawen hehe) and somehow makes the logical leap that gazelles in Africa are actually human Gods in disguise. Now, nothing on that ticket points in that direction...it is a fault in the "input-output machine ". Now, take the person who lives in Africa and everytime a gazelle passes, he has what he sees as good luck. He also believes that the gazelles are Gods in disguise.
To recap...Because the information given in the second scenario can be processed without contradictions in such a way to lead to the conclusion, then the person is sane...but possible wrong.
So, Theists see everything around them as lending faith in their belief of God. The information that they are using may be wrong...but their processing is fine. Unlike some people...who we classify as insane.
-joey
If you simplify it to putting something in and getting something out, then how do you explain two "sane" people seeing exactly the same thing and getting two different things out of it?
For instance, 2 people see the movie 300. One person says, "Yeah this is why America needs to stand up for its freedom against terrorists and Osama Bin Laden! Why do they hate freedom?" The other person says, "You've got it all wrong! The Spartans are the Iraqis and Afghanistani people, outnumbered, outgunned, but still bravely fighting for freedom against a tyrannical, hedonistic foreign nation."
It's not as simple to say which one of these people interpreted it "incorrectly." I don't think you can say that.
just like there's many different ways to reach the same place, so it is with logic. Many things like, will the sun rise tomorrow are questions that if answered against what we are used to "yes"...still make sense. It is perfectly conceivable that the sun will rise tomorrow. There is nothing in the definition of "sun" that says it must rise every morning.
On the other hand, there is logic that simply has to be. For example, 2+2 = 4 because the definition of 4 is simply 2 and 2.
Therefore, while there are many different results possible from the same inputs, some are not included because of contradictions. The insane breach these contradictions in logic and cannot be made to see it.
Post a Comment